Conference 7.286::digital

Some customers in the U.S. are paying for software support while some 
customers seem to know how to get around it in order to get free support.
>>> Yes this is also the case in European CSC's.

In the Canadian CSC we have in place people specifically dedicated to
qualifying software calls when they come in and the customer doesn't appear
to have a contract for the product he/she's calling on.  For every call that
comes in as PER CALL when it is qualified as being valid, the customer
database gets fixed.  After going through the growing pains and getting some
customers p****d off, our database is now in much better shape and I'd say
the level of service has improved.

>>> Well Canada has one big advantage, which is CORE, as integrated obligation-
call management system. Europe and the US don't have it. You also use, at least
in some parts of APA, CORE for per call invoicing. But it's true, software
support is given free a lot of times. Not only on the fact if the customer
has a valid contract, but also all those short (< 10 min) calls.
The other thing is that as long as for what reason whatsoever the obligation
management database is not up-to-date, we give the customer the benefit of the
doubt. Process are getting in place to make software registration easier (get
rid of QT numbers) and to take care that the obl. mgt. db's are up-to-date.
But a real project to get rid of this doesn't exist as far as I know.

But we loose a lot of money over it, specially Europe, who doesn't have a good
per call invoicing module (we're looking at PEARS, US solution).

Ciao,
Michiel

As an ex-Sales Support Consultant I'd like to add my 2� worth here.  The CSC is
an extremely valuable tool for gaining customer confidence when used as an
emergency fix.  I've often told folks to call the hot-line and when asked for
an access number just say "I need a one-time access".  I also say that if they 
are denied access then call me back and I'll try to help.  I've never been called
back by a customer.

It was explained to me that the CSC keeps track of who is calling and after 2 calls
by someone not an support a trigger goes off to get in touch with the sales office
in the region of the customer.  The sales office is queried whether or not CSC
support denial will cause a customer situation.  If it will then the local office
is asked to start picking up the tab; else the caller is denied the next time.

I can't praise the CSC enough for there unyielding efforts to help out customers.
I also believe that the customer should pay for the right to the CSC and those
callers that are abusing the system should be denied access.  I'm only afraid of
adding beaurocracy that will get the baby thrown out with the bath water.


		YOU GUYS IN THE CSC ARE DOING A HERCULEAN JOB
		AND DOING IT DARNED WELL!!!!!!!!

	Thanks,

Chuck

    
    Re .2;
    
    Chuck,  I work in the Colorado Support Center, and your assumption of
    2 calls from a customer is incorrect.  We have no way of tracking them
    without a correct ACCESS NUMBER and or a correct SYSTEM SERIAL NUMBER.
    Names are not unique, neither are company names.  I have no problems
    proving our worth to a customer, but do have problems giving the
    service away.
    
    Chuck,  Thanks for your compliments about the center, we appreciate
    your consideration and support for us.  I hope we make your job easier.
    
    Jim Morton

    Always remember, you asked for it........;-)
    
    maybe I can answer some questions here since I have been doing ALOT of
    research into this very problem in the last few months.
    
    First of all, statistics show that about 60% of the calls that come
    into the center EVERY DAY are logged by non contacts.
    A non contact is someone who's name does not appear on the contact list
    for a particular access number (as a brief explanation, with each
    telephone support contract, a company is allowed to designate three
    people who are allowed to call the centers. Each additional CALLER
    costs the customer $200 per month. A non contact is someone who calls
    who is NOT one of the three people on that list). Again, 60% of the
    callers into the center do NOT appear as valid contacts.
    
    Because of the fact that our databases are completey MESSED UP and
    unreliable, MANY of those non contacts should actually appear on the
    list, but since they do not, their names pop as non contacts.
    Eliminating those who's name SHOULD be on the list, we are left with
    approximatly 18% of the calls that come into the center each and every
    day that are made by legitimate NON CONTACTS or folks who are not entitled
    to be calling for support, which includes a large number of people
    who KNOW they are abusing the system. (18% is based on research 
    conducted over the last few months)
    Since we take over 8000 calls into the center each and every day, and
    18% of those calls that we take are calls from customers who we should
    be charging for phone support (at a rate of $200 per hour with a 2 hour 
    minimum) I'll let YOU figure out how much revenue we are NOT taking in 
    every day, that we could be if we chose to fix this problem.
    
    SO why DON'T we fix the problem?
    
    Lots of reasons (so I've been told).
    
    1)The databases are so screwed up that it won't be until mid 1995 that
    we have them cleaned up (now till 1995 at 18% of @8000 calls per day at
    $200 an hour, 2 hour minimum---OR--if each of the @1400 callers PER DAY
    paid to be added to the contact lists at $200 each per month
    -----a few $$$$)
    2)The groups responsible for cleaning up these databases from hell keep
    losing folks to TFSO. 
    3)Specialists are told not to question folks who are not on the list,
    or who call in with an Ultrix question but only show to have purchased
    a VMS contract, because since the databases can't be trusted, we don't
    want to piss off anybody....so "just help them"...and TFSO a few more
    folks who we can't afford to keep around...
    4)"We" don't have time to address "line items" (non contacts and non
    contracts on a specific product) because the limited number of folks we
    have are currently busy addressing the real issues,like contracts that
    expired two years ago that the customer is still using for
    support. It is a fact. The very small number of folks we have who are
    tasked with cleaning up this money sucking disaster are working quite
    hard to address one part of our contract discrepency problems.  
    
    We take calls from our competitors who have sold phone support
    contracts to THEIR OWN customers, who have given carte blanche to all
    of the specialists in THEIR centers to call us and have us fix THEIR
    CUSTOMERS SYSTEMS. Because that competitor has one access number of
    their own, they call in on that (any of their 2 dozen phone support
    folks make the call) and have us work their customer issues. 
    It is by sheer accident that we catch them doing it and cut them off...
    of course, it's also usually HOURS AND HOURS of support later that they
    are caught. If we'd have questioned their non contact status
    the first time around, we may have been able to stop this earlier.
    But we never question them. We just give away the service. 
    This is not a rare occurance. This happens ALL THE TIME>
    
    We also have outside consultants who call in using an access number
    that they got from one of THEIR CLIENTS and who are forevermore getting
    free digital phone support.  The only way we catch them at it is when
    they are not the person who answers the phone, and the person who does
    says "Joe Smith? He doesn't work here...oh wait a minute...he's that
    consultant".  Then we can cut them off.  ...we caught another one last
    night who had logged over 20 hours of phone support in less than two
    weeks that he was NOT paying for...(20 hours X $200 an hour......)
    We'll never collect. ///more free service.
    
    We are giving away MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN POTENTIAL REVENUE EVERY DAY
    and our target date for resolution is OVER A YEAR AWAY.
    
    And even if some of these folks decided NOT to pay and to just live without
    phone support service, we'd have more time to spend on those PAYING
    customers out there who complain that specialists RUSH thru their
    calls, or that they have to wait sometimes for DAYS to get a callback..
    They might be more inclined to renew a contract...
    
    I don't want to deny service to a paying customer. But lets face it,
    if you call Sears with an expired warranty on a Maytag washer, they are
    NOT going to spend much time helping you for FREE.
    We have got to start being realistic and shut down the charity work.
    We have to get TOUGH on NON PAYING customers and stop being afraid to
    say "no $$$, no support".
    Try calling MicroSoft without a contract and see what happens.
    It's NOT pretty. They are NOT NICE to you when you try to do that to
    them. 
    Face it..it's STEALING.
    
    Assuming we are all still around in 1995, I hope that whoever is
    made accountable for maintaining database integrity is better at it 
    than that last folks....

    
    
    One more thing to add.  I wasn't going to say this but it applies to
    soooooo many topics in this conference, I might as well mention it
    here.
    
    We CAN FIX this problem and just about any other problem we really
    have.  We can be successful as a business and a corporation.  I keep
    hearing "WHY DON'T WE DO ...."?  HERE IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER:  MAYBE
    WE WANT TO FAIL AS A BUSINESS.  I noticed problems 15 years ago and as
    I would point them out I was told, I didn't understand business.  I
    speculated we would fall.  I was told I was too negative.  It is
    painfully obvious to me that we don't want to fix the problems or WE
    WOULD FIX THEM.
    
    Jim Morton

Jim,

I have often exactly the same feeling.

re: also a few back:

If fixing this problem takes up to -95, how can they ever cope with all of the
changes happening all the time?

--Ritva

Out of curiosity, re: contact list for software support contracts:

How do our competitors like IBM and HP do it?  Do they sell contact lists?  
Do they validate callers' names?  Do they disallow invalid contacts?  Do they 
permit *courtesy* calls?

We actually still have that problem in Canada.  I'd say about 50% of our 
callers are invalid.  I've tried to submit sales leads to sell additional 
contacts to invalid callers but all that happens is that the customer ends up 
shuffling the 3 valid contacts around.  Most of them refuse to pay for 
additional contacts.  The price is around $2000/year per additional contact 
above the 3 allowed.

When we tell a customer that he/she is not a valid contact they just say that 
the valid ones are not around or are on vacation and they need to be serviced 
anyway.  How can we refuse service then when they're system or 
application is down?

I personally feel sorry for customers that do pay for additional contacts not 
knowing that they could get anyone to call without validation.  If some of 
them do find out aren't we at risk of litigation?

/Mario

    >How can we refuse service?
    
    We NEVER refuse service. We fax them a purchase order and when they
    sign it, agreeing that they will pay $200 and hour with a 2 hour
    minumum, then we will be glad to help them.
    
    I understand your concern, but we have to get it through our thick
    heads that Digital is NOT a charity organization.
    
    

    
    maybe another analogy that might help folks understand.
    
    If you can only afford to insure ONE of your two cars, and you have an
    accident while you're in the UNINSURED car, TOUGH. YOU PAY for the
    damage, and YOU may even go to jail cause you didn't take out
    insurance.  There is NO charity involved. 
    
    Think of the contact list as INSURANCE. You're insuring that you will
    always have someone in your company who is eligable to call Digital in
    the event of a problem or outages. 
    
    This MAY NOT be the best way for us to sell service, but since it IS
    the way we sell service, it IS the way customers must purchase it and
    be supported accordingly. 
    
    By the way, insurance companies are RICH, RICH, RICH while Digital is
    NOT, NOT, NOT. 
    
    We need to stop thinking we OWE the customers free support cause they
    don't want to spend money. 

>    This MAY NOT be the best way for us to sell service, but since it IS
>    the way we sell service, it IS the way customers must purchase it and
>    be supported accordingly.

Wrong mindset.  if customers don't like the way we sell our service, then we
need to start listening to our customers and change what we sell.

Customers do not need to buy support from us.........

Why are we losing customers to other vendors who are in turn calling us for
support?

Just rambling.

--Scott

    
    
    I agree. We do need to relook at the way we do business.
    
    
    BUT IN THE MEANTIME customers KNOW how we do business. 
    IT IS STEALING to take something without paying for it. 
    We have no IMMEDIATE recourse but to ask (demand) that our customers
    respect the legally binding contracts that they signed.
    
    IMMEDIATE is the key here. We don't have a year to wait while we
    revamp our contract stragedy.  It may be ugly, but it IS legal.
    

    
    
    re your "why are we loosing support to other vendors who are then
    turning to us for support"
    
    I can answer that. 
    Because they can sell support for CHEAPER because they don't have to
    have the overhead of a support organization or an ENGINEERING GROUP ;-)
    They simply have to pay the minimul fee for ONE access number with NO
    additional contacts.  
    
    It is NOT that their support is BETTER (I've heard that from the
    customers themselves)...it's just that it's SO much cheaper....
    That vendor can AFFORD to charge diddly for service because ultimelty
    WE are supporting the end user, and WE are absorbing the overhead
    costs.
    
    Think about it...it's quite a scam actually.....Go out and undersell
    DEC on support contracts, buy ONE access number for the ONE machine
    you bought from DIGITAL and have the DIGITAL support organization
    and have Digital support resolve ALL but the most basic of problems....
    
    Such a deal!

I hear a lot of moaning and wailing about not pi__ing off a customer
by refusing support but hey, let's get real here!  The caller that 
doesn't have a contract SHOULD NOT BE GETTING SUPPORT.  If there are
extenuating circumstances then perhaps some freebie support can be
thrown but you folks at the CSC are forgetting one important person
in the decision equation.

When the caller doesn't appear on the access list you MAY deny access
but have a caveat that that person's Digital Sales Account Manager 
mitigate the situation.  At the very least have a person from the local
sales office verify or allow the support.

I can sympathize with a person who is under the gun to get their system
running again but I cannot sympathize when they turned down the opportunity
to buy that service!  If you haven't the manpower to straighten out the
data base then get the sales force involved and get them to help.

My original 'modus operandi' ASSUMED that the CSC was checking a list
and that I would be called if there was a problem (in order to verify
the legality of the call).  If the CSC is not checking for validity and
then providing the service for free then we in the field are unwittingly
filling that pipeline of non-payers.

The buck stops at the CSC just as it did in Sales Support with 'free'
consulting, startups and software installations.  You've stated the 
correct conclusion by mentioning the dollars of revenue lost but you have
overlooked the most important of costs and that is 'opportunity loss'.  By 
continuing to provide free service (even the little ones without some
input from the sales office) you're impuning the value of the service
to those folks who DO pay for it.  This cost is in delays in servicing the
paying customers.

Suggestions:

Quit giving it away for free.

Denying service in an emergency situation is painful to the person
who should have bought it; it shouldn't be painful to do.  If you get
the sales force in as a tie breaker then you have/give some horsepower.

I'm still impressed by the quality of service you give and the speed
with which you provide it and I hope you can take these ideas as good
intentioned suggestions.

Chuck

    
    RE:  Additional contacts and stealing.  The customer pays for support
    on their software.  They see the additional contact charge as a way we
    are trying to gouge them, or so I have been told.
    

Here's a possible solution.

If the customer doesn't appear on your lists,  apologize alot for Digital's
database being screwed up.  Ask them to FAX *THEIR* copy of the service
contract to Digital.  Offer them a *FREE* month of service if it turns out
they have a valid contract.

Or if it's an emergency,  ask for a credit card number to bill to in the
event a service contract can not be verified.

And while all this is going on,  hire a 100 people for a few months to
sort out the databases.  Heck,  I bet if we went to a competitor and offered
them 50% of what they could recover,  they could have the databases
straighted out in a couple months.  So while the SLT is cutting turkey's
and paper clips,  they ignore the millions we could be getting.

Sad,  WANG!  move over! Here we come!

Garry

I think the some of the previous replys miss the point.  It leaves out that most important
person again, the sales rep.  When the rep feels pain things generally happen.

Yeah the preceding suggestions might work if you do extra labor, but the
simple fact is...


	You have the Digital Procedures

		Live by them!





		No pay, no play.

    Cathy,
    
    I'll do the math...
    
    18% of 8000 calls per day = 1440 call per day (non-contact)
    1440 x $200  = $288,000 per day in lost revenue 
    $288,000 x 250 = $72,000,000 (250 working days per year, though the CSC
                                  is open 365 days)
    
    That's $72 million!!! Does that number sound familiar to anyone?
    
    
    re- some of the previous replies.  Yes, there are a lot of good ways to 
        handle this. Involving the sales reps and hiring some people to do
        the database entry are some.  At this point we are being told 
        "not to worry about this".....
    
    	Because of roadblocks, this is NOT a simple issue to solve.
    
    
    One last point on the math....
    
    This is only ONE line item on the contracts that are not being
    enforced. There are AT LEAST 10 more issues involving giving away 
    free service that are JUST AS BIG AN IMPACT	. That would put the
    number for JUST the CSC at OVER
    
    $700 MILLION!!!!!!!
    
    
    Steve Pitt

    Sounds like the third party support business does not violate
    any of our contract rules.  Someone just buys a machine from
    us and sets themselves up as a support bureau.  They charge
    a fraction of what we charge.  Customers call them for support.
    They may actually be able to help some of their customers.

    For many of their calls (perhaps even ALL) they cannot offer immediate
    support.  So they just call us.  We help them, give them the
    answer, they relay that solution to the customer.

    Sounds like we need to change our contracts.  Perhaps charge
    'per call'.  Or only allow so many 'free' calls per contract.

    No matter how I look at this, DIGITAL remains the cause of its
    own woes, either due to its own incompetance or inability
    to modify its behaviour to improve its situation.

    When our competitors are able to use our internal incompetance
    to their advantage, who's really at fault?
    bob

    
    .13
    
    My understanding of the process is that the Contract Administrators in
    the local offices are the only ones who have write access to the
    contract databases. The support folks in the CSC are strictly
    read-only.
    

    .19
    
    Some of us have write access, but the local office's SMART database
    overwrites our changes.  Therefore, it is futile for us to make the
    changes.
    
    Jill

    
    
    re .13
    
    the specialists are not allowed to deny service. 
    The crg does NOT verify contact status. 
    
    The reason?  catch-22.
    Our databases are too SCROD to deny access to anyone.
    
    SO: we have a few options here.
    
    1)We can wait until the databases are reliable before we can start
    confidently telling people that they don't get this for free and to
    send us some $$$ before we can help them
    THat could be A LONG ways off and we've already seen the lost revenue
    (thanks Steve!).  and..for what it's worth, this has been a problem for
    as long as I've been with Digital..almost 12 years of "don't worry
    about it...we're working on it",
    
    2)We can just blanketly stop servicing anyone with any kind of contract
    descrepency.....but that could get us in alot of legal trouble since it
    is OUT fault and not the customers that our databases are UNreliable
    (an understatement). Plus, it's just plain not good business to let
    everyone KNOW how bad a shape we're in. Plus, it just plain isn't fair
    to put 60%+ of our customers through that everyday....oh and one more
    plus on this one--there aren't enough contract admin folks to follow
    up on 1800 non contact/contract calls each and every day. So pitch that
    idea.
    
    3)We can have the CRG verify contact/contrat status on each and every
    call logged and flag a discrepency. The specialist can then ask the customer
    if he feels that he should be on the contact list. If the customer says
    YES, then the spec should provide the support, and elevate that call to
    a contract admin team who will simply call up the access number and
    compare it to the actual legally binding contract, then update the
    call back to the center. If the person was service and does NOT show up
    on the contract as entitled to service, we can deicde to either charge
    him back for it or not, and we can also flag the access number to NOT
    service THAT caller again.  If the caller ADMITS that he is not
    entitled to service, then we fax him a revenue opportunity form, or
    tell him that we can't help, and go on to help a PAYING customer.
    
    MANY MANY customers readily admit that they are not entitled to support
    but go on to ask "can you help anyways?"  (I had a STUDENT who was
    trying to do his homework. He couldn't telnet into a system using
    MULTINET. He KNEW he was not supposed to be calling in. He KNEW that
    this was Digital and NOT TGV. And he actually asked: "can you help me
    anyways?"  By the current call flow, if the call gets to a specialist
    (thru the CRG) we provide support, no questions asked.
    I used to get alot of calls from folks who purchased a third party
    TCP/IP product direct from that vendor. When I asked why they were
    calling me, they said "because the vendor can't help me".......
    
    We have to start QUESTIONING SUSPECT CALLERS.
    We have to start shutting down free service. 
    We MUST EMPOWER the specialists to help in addressing this issue 
    before there are no specialists left to worry about it....
    
    And it would be nice if the sales reps would call the center to set up 
    courtesy service instead of just having the customer call in blindly.
    ESPECIALLY, if you feel that your sale may balanace on the support he
    receives on the phone, or how easy it is for him to get his system
    configured and functional. With prior warning, we can put our BEST foot
    forward (instead of the foot with the stomped on toes)......  ;-)
    

    Oh, I knew I got the numbers wrong....
    
    The $200 charge per non-contact should be per month for each person 
    added to the contract.  so...
    
    $72,000,000 x 12 = $864 Million JUST for the non-contacts!!
    
    Steve Pitt  (it just keeps getting worse!!)

    re: To all those who feel that customers are abusing the system:
    
    You're right, there are customers who abuse the support system.
    They take advantage of the fact that Digital can't keep it's own
    records straight, and that there are loopholes in some of Digital's
    policies and term and conditions.
    
    There are also customers out there who have been abused by Digital's
    support system. They've faithfully requested support contracts, waited
    as Digital processed them in elephantine slow motion, and spent time
    in endless revisions attempting to get products and people covered
    within Digital's contradictory policy structures. They've spent time
    trying to reconcile invoices with contracts where there isn't a single
    piece of correctly corresponding information. I know, I went through
    the same heartburn as a customer.
    
    For all those people who want to charge the customer first and ask
    questions later, just remember this: We can afford to lose some
    revenue while we get our house in order. But we can't afford to 
    swindle a customer, because that becomes lost revenue *forever*.
    
    Geoff

    re- blaming the customers.
    
    I haven't heard anyone "blame" the customers.  I have heard people say
    that customer's take advantage of the "system".  Just saying the
    system is wrong won't fix it. 
    
    Ok, everyone raise your hands. Who thinks we should NOT try to fix this 
    problem of giving away free service?
    
    Some more numbers: 
    
    	Rumor has it that 7000 more people will be TFSO'd by June, 94.
    	Assume $40,000 salary per person= $280 million.
    	Assume the non-contact problem is only half of the estimate.
        
    	Fixing the non-contact saves $432 million per yer.
        TFSO'in 7000 people saves $280 million per year.
    
    Uh....  Burger B.
    
    
    Steve 

    
    
    re .23
    
    Please remember this:
    
    there are three kinds of people who call call in for support:
    
    1)a customer who has paid for support and is fortunate enough to have
    his contract in order (I think there are two of those folks)
    
    2)a customer who has paid for support and who's contract is SCROD
    
    3)a NON paying customer who COULD BE a PAYING customer who so far has
    never been asked to PAY, who may or may not be TRYING to get something
    for nothing.
    
    It is only (potential revenue opportunity) customer number 3 who we
    need to address. It is only customer #3 who is costing us that
    bazillion dollars a year, and who's $$ we would love to start
    collecting for a change. 
    I think we all want to avoid POOOING on our paying
    customers since they are the only thing keeping any of us employed
    right now...
    

	Another thing to keep in mind, when we made large margins we could
better afford to cut some slack and give the customer the benefit of the 
doubt. After all they paid a LOT for that box or software product.

	Today with margins cut to the bone the added overhead of unpaid support
can very easily turn your profits into losses. The PC vendors out there know
that and realize that after X number of support calls, they lose money. So
they know they have to make their stuff good, and well documented. After the
grace period is over they aren't shy about charging by the hour. In fact
I believe Novel charges $150 a call with no free service call period. Thats
how our compitition leverages buying Novel system from them, they will give
you a free service period with the purchase.

	As was said MANY times here and elsewhere, times have changed, the
way we need to do busniess has changed. Mabe it's time we stopped selling
these contracts if we cant administer them properly. Charge $150 a call, 
and handle anything that comes in, our stuff, their stuff, it dosn't matter
you got the bucks we got the info. 

	We gotta get busniess smarts here, we need people to run the busniess
who know the busniess. I thing the next round of TSFOs should get busniess
people into the first and second level management positions.

JD

>> The PC vendors out there know that and realize that after X number of support
>> calls, they lose money. So they know they have to make their stuff good,
>> and well documented. After the grace period is over they aren't shy about
>> charging by the hour. In fact I believe Novel charges $150 a call with no 
>> free service call period.

Is this really true across the board?  I just finished a project with a customer
that involved a lot of Digital and non-Digital HW and SW.  I made numerous calls
to Wordperfect and several other small PC vendors.  Never once was I asked for
an access number or refused service.  While Wordperfect's support isn't *quick*,
it took forever to get somebody on the line, the support people were very helpful
and very knowlegeable (both of their product as well as VMS).

Maybe this is the exception rather than the rule, but if it does happen in at
least some cases, perhaps this is what customers have come to *expect* rather
than view it as stealing something for nothing.

BTW, this same customer also tried to get a new product *added* to his list of
Digital supported products.  He made numerous phone calls with each person
directing him to call somewhere else.  I'm still not sure the issue has been
resolved.

I'm not defending the practice of giving away free support (I feel very strongly
they should be paying) but, from what I've seen in the field the customers often
have a different story to tell and it isn't all pretty for Digital....


Larry

    
    
    	Here's something that as pi**ed me off more times than I would like
    	to count.
    
    	Customer has no software contract but has a hardware contract. 
    	Customer calls the local field service office and places a
    	hardware call, say cannot do a backup. Field service gets on
    	site and tests the hardware, it's all okay. What the customer
    	really wanted was someone to do his/her backup because the
    	regular operator is on vaction, TSFO'ed, etc. Then the FE on
    	site calls the CSC for help.
    
    	NOW we have two people supporting the customer with no contact.
    	Want to try and figure the costs on that!
    
    
    							MIke

Maybe $200 per hour, 2 hour min is just plain too high. That's $400 minimum
to talk to DEC about a technical problem.

When I take my widget in to a service center for repair, they always have a 
sign that says "minimum charge $xx". Usually somewhere between $10 and $50.
Since I'm not sure whether the repair will be cost effective, I need to decide
whether to take a chance. If the minimum charge is high, I will try hard to
get some free advice and/or some over-the-counter evaluation before signing
up to pay the big bucks.

If our rate were $150 per hour, 15 minute minimum, it would be a lot easier
for us to bill for this service. Users with a simple problem would get their
problem fixed for $37.50, they'd get a bill in the mail, and they'd pay it.
If the alternative is $400, these same users will work hard to wangle free
service from us, and we'll wind up with $0.00 of revenue.

The $200 per hour fee is an obvious rip-off from our customer's viewpoint.
We're charging $200 per hour for a person's time, and the company is paying
the person maybe $30 per hour. The company is pocketing $170 per hour, or
85% gross margin, to support a product that the customer feels should not
even be "broken" to start with.

The going labor rate at auto repair places is ~$45/hr. Our labor rate should be
under $100 if we aspire to be a volume provider of support services. Of
course, to make money at this, our recordkeeping must be good enough to
collect most of the money owed us.

--RS

On the other hand, I've always maintained that if everyone
in the free world had free education and support from
Digital what a fine Digital world it would be.

The problem with trying to solve a problem like non-paying
customers is that you need to define the problem.  If we 
measure CSC effectiveness by how much money they bring in 
then the free customers actually hurt the rating.  If we
measure CSC effectiveness by how much help they provide then
the free customers fall out of the equation.

It is very debatable about what the best approach is during
these times of customer unrest.

It should be flatly stated that when a customer calls and needs
help de-installing a Digital system they should be given the
corporate run-around! ;^)


cw

    re .29-
    
    Good point on the 2 hour minimum.  I also believe we should make it
    easy for customers to get quick answers.  We have proposed many times
    using a creidt card billing and bill ONLY for time expended on a call.
    (NO GO by those making the decisions).
    
    There is a little hope.  The next version of STARS database is supposed
    to have an electronic credit card billing access (bills for connect
    time).  I don't know anymore details yet.
    
    If we can do this for database access, why not phone support?
    
    Steve

    re .29
    
    You may think $200 an hour with a 2 hr is robbery, but count our cost.
    How long do you think it takes to do a crash dump.  Even just to answer
    a simple question, may take some research.  Not everyone has every
    answer memorized.  Keep in mind we also have reports to fill out to
    open and close the call.  We also have overhead staff to update our
    databases and keep our library.  We also have phone lines to dial in. 
    Care to see what prime time phone costs are over 3000 miles for 2
    hours.  We also have to pay for our own systems, and the building and
    the maintenace and the management and the secretarys.  Heck we even
    have to by toilet paper (we have about 2000 people in the colorado
    building durring the day).  Have you considered what it costs to send
    an ENG to school to provide the high level of support?  YOU MAY THINK
    IT IS HIGH, BUT IT IS A STEAL.  Oh, almost forgot.  We even page people
    all hours of the day for just about anything.  Know what a callout is? 
    
    
    Jim Morton

    
    
    I agree with Jim that $200 an hour with a two hour minimum is a good
    competitive price. This isn't Jiffy Lube.  
    Think of how much you might pay a service man to fix your washer. There is
    a minimum service charge, even if he doesn't find anything wrong.  It's 
    usually someplace around $30-50 dollars per hour, one hour minimum.
    Now this is for a $500 washing machine AND you're not losing much more
    than $10 in quarters and a few afternoons at the laundramat while it's
    down. 
    On the other hand, with our pay per hour customers, we're often talking 
    about hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment and very costly,
    sometimes devestating, downtime. Then there are the folks who need help 
    through complete installations and configurations. Why pay for any kind of
    install service, when we can pop on and off the phone and have it all done
    in a few hours for dirt cheap?

    It's also a good way to deter folks from calling us with with 40 second
    questions because their manual is in the other room. It wouldn't be
    worth our time to just charge for "time spent" on a call like that because
    the administrative costs alone would make it 'cost INeffective'.
       
    We can't undercut ourselves on our full support contracts. We
    don't want anyone to think it's a bargain to pay by the hour, or that
    it's a deal to go out and bye 'Joes bargain TCP/IP', then call us 'per
    hour' and we'll get it to work for them, which, all total may be 
    cheaper than buying Digitals TCP/IP product even with NO support.

    And oh, by the way, consulting "out there" is NOT cheap! $200 an hour
    is pretty close to the going rate, and MOST of the consultants "out
    there" do NOT have Digital's resources behind them....(of course,
    sometimes I don't think that WE do either ;-)


    

  Re .29   -< $200, 2 hr min is highway robbery >-

> The $200 per hour fee is an obvious rip-off from our customer's viewpoint.
> We're charging $200 per hour for a person's time, and the company is paying
> the person maybe $30 per hour. The company is pocketing $170 per hour, or
> 85% gross margin, to support a product that the customer feels should not
> even be "broken" to start with.

  Glad that someone eventually got round to this point - shame it was followed
  up by .32 (Jim M) :

> You may think $200 an hour with a 2 hr [minimum] is robbery, but count our
> cost.

  WHY SHOULD OUR CUSTOMER CARE ABOUT HOW INEFFICIENTLY WE RUN OUR BUSINESS ?

  We are supposed to be providing a high quality support service on premium-
  price products.  The fact that the products aren't premium-price quality
  in the first place generates the customer calls and the initial level of
  customer dissatisfaction.  Fine, that's why they buy the "insurance" of the
  support contract (ie., because they know that the products are created by
  humans and subject to the same degree of human error as any other field of
  activity).  To gouge more money from the customer because we (as a company)
  are inefficient and to then "justify" it by whinging about the intrinsic
  costs of doing work is simply pathetic.
    
> Keep in mind we also have reports to fill out to open and close the call.
> We also have overhead staff to update our databases and keep our library.
> We also have phone lines to dial in.
> We also have to pay for our own systems, and the building and
> the maintenace and the management and the secretarys.
> Heck we even have to by toilet paper (we have about 2000 people in the 
> colorado building durring the day).
> Have you considered what it costs to send an ENG to school to provide the
> high level of support?

  The answer to every one of the above questions is "Who Cares ?".

  As a customer, I buy a software support contract on DECthingy.  If DECthingy
  has a bug in it, I want a fix (and a workaround in the meantime because this
  is costing my company money).  I don't know and honestly don't care about
  how much toilet paper may get consumed in the building while I'm waiting
  for this business-critical bug to get fixed ... THAT IS A PROBLEM WITH YOUR
  BUSINESS, NOT MINE !

> YOU MAY THINK IT IS HIGH, BUT IT IS A STEAL.  

  It certainly *IS* a steal ... and most people have figured out just who's
  doing the stealing ...

> Oh, almost forgot.  We even page people all hours of the day for just about
> anything.  Know what a callout is? 
    
  Yes.  It's an additional charge on the support contract with the same "bloat"
  factor as for practically every other item this company sells.  Next ?
  
  Frank Bell
  UKCSC

    
    
    I don't believe that the $200 a hour came out of an inefficiency. 
    
    I believe that it was out set price based on competitive pricing
    (consulting outside of Digital IS quite expensive).
    
    Also, Digital doesn't have a monoply on consulting. They can always go
    outside of Digital and pay less if they can find someone who can do the
    same job for cheaper. 
    
    And I can tell you from my experience with one of our customers who
    does provide service for cheaper than we do. They're the folks who have
    one access number and call us to back them up. They have little
    expertise beyond entry level, and can't fix anything but the most basic
    of problems. Once we cut off supporting THEIR customers, then their
    customers will see the value of coming to Digital for support.  
    
    The old, pay me now, or pay me later.
    
    Pricing shouldn't be FAIR. It should be competitive and should be based
    on a)the sellers costs  b)the buyers needs  c)the quality of the
    product.  It's up to the customer to determine if the quality he is
    getting is worth the price he can decline to pay.  'Fair' has little to
    do with it.  This isn't cable TV.....
    
     

    
    Re: .34
    
    Right on!  All the justification in the world doesn't matter a
    bit to a customer who has bet the business on a solution from
    Digital that is broken.  Think about it from their point of
    view.  Why should they pay big dollars for support contracts
    for a system they just paid half a million dollars for.  For
    that kind of money IT SHOULD WORK and without a lot of expensive
    technical expertise.
    
    Listen up folks.  The world out there has already changed.  Customers
    are spending BIG money JUST TO STAY AFLOAT.  Because of global
    competition, margins are now so thin, that they can't afford a mistake.
    If their PERCEPTION is that they are getting ripped off, all the logic
    you may want to throw their way is not going to stop them from going
    elsewhere.  Arguing from OUR point of view is just trying to preserve
    the status quo in OUR favor.  Customers are not stupid.  They know
    exactly why we do that.
    
    The answer is NOT rocket science.  In the 90's, you satisfy the
    customer OR YOU GO OUT OF BUSINESS.
    
    Steve
    

    
    
    re .35
    
    Maybe I can clear up that point by sharing some experience on WHY
    customers call.
    
    I would guess (based on 10+ years of experience in phone support,)
    that over 95% of the calls we take are NOT for 'broken' things.
    MOST of our calls are configuration assistance, things that the
    customer has screwed up (all by themselves) and needs help getting out
    of, from customers who don't read the manuals (or didn't buy the manuals
    because they didn't want to spend the $$) or customers who have
    consulting type of questions (ie 'what's the best way to do xyz) or
    need someone to write code for them, or help them debug their code. 
    
    SOME calls ARE product deficiency related. NOt many (unless we're
    talking about ONE certain product--right Jim!!!)
    You're right that most of our customers are "trying to stay afloat"
    just like we are. That STILL doesn't make us a charity organization.
    
    I think that gas prices are OUTRAGEOUS. I have some choices. I can go
    to 7-11 and buy cheaper gas. I can stop driving my car, I can steal it
    from Texaco, or I can just pay the higher price, knowing (hoping!) that
    I am getting the quality product. 
    I won't buy it at 7-11 because I know that it is LOUSY gas. 
    I can't stop driving my car.
    Just because I KNOW that my $$ is going to make some arab shiek richer
    doesn't give me the right to steal it.
    SO, I'll take the hit and buy the quality product, even though I'm on a
    budget and dropping $1.34 a gallon in saudi arabia really puts a crimp
    on my pocket book. It's cheaper than having to replace the engine in my
    car cause of bad gas damage, and I don't want to get stuck on a highway
    in the middle of Kansas in a snow storm because I saved $.50 a gallon
    on cheesy watered down gas.
    It's insurance. It's my choice. I'll pay the higher price. 
    
    Customers have choices. But calling for support that you are unwilling
    to pay for is NOT one of them  (well, actually, it is right now, and
    that's why we're trying to fix this problem)  
    
    

re Note 2865.36 by NASZKO::MACDONALD:

>     view.  Why should they pay big dollars for support contracts
>     for a system they just paid half a million dollars for.  For
>     that kind of money IT SHOULD WORK and without a lot of expensive
>     technical expertise.
  
        While I certainly agree that it should work, why should a
        customer expect that a highly-technical product would not
        require technical expertise to install and operate?

        For some of our products, this IS "rocket science."

        Bob

    
    RE: ALERT ALERT RATHOLE< NIT< ETC ETC.... :')
    
    
    Actually, the Saudis get very little of the $$$$ you spend at the pump. 
    The largest percentage of what you spend goes to the gov't for taxes.
    
    
    Mike

   Re: -.38

   Both the observations that customers expect good service for a system
   that costs half a million dollars for free as well as something that
   costs that much should also cost a lot in services are moot in some
   sense.

   Why do you think workstations, PCs, client-server computing,
   distributed databases are all so popular these days?
   Customers DO NOT WANT TO SPEND HALF A MILLION DOLLARS for something
   that can be done on PCs and Novell Netware they can buy at their local
   Computer City Store. And the Nay-sayers have to only look at the explosive
   growth of SYBASE and other companies like Gupta Technologies to understand
   what's happening there. And when you have a distributed network of
   100 PCs in all your branch offices, comparisons between the speeds of
   Pentium and an Alpha is downright dumb since it does not matter any more.

   And when was the last time you signed a 
   service contract for a thousand dollars for a toaster that cost you
   20$?. That's what happens when Digital tries to do multi-vendor
   services the old-DIGITAL way instead of pay-per-call, charge-your-call
   on your credit-card or the way "Dial-A-Nerd" does it in Atlanta (NO
   Kidding! A guy is on the road constantly in his van - a customer
   summons him through his mobile car phone using a 1-800 number).

   Digital has been sleeping while hundreds of companies give a lot of
   stupid service away for free (How do I install something? How do I adjust 
   the parameters on some software?) on internet, Prodigy, Compuserve.
   Some companies fax back support articles from a phone system, a 
   computer and a fax modem.

   Ziff-Davis publishes a CD-ROM that collects all these articles and
   sends it out to you for a fee (about 1200$, I think). MCI, here in
   Colorado Springs has set up its own support hotlines that have qualified
   people do the support internally rather than pay big support contracts. 

   I found the right logo for Digital in our Digital Art Library:
   It's an ostrich with its head in the sand. It might be able to see
   a couple of predators, but only if it takes its head out of the sand
   first.

   Nari

     

  Re .35
    
> I believe that it was out set price based on competitive pricing
> (consulting outside of Digital IS quite expensive).
    
  You seem to be mixing consulting (optional services) with support (basic
  services).  If you're busy giving away blatant consultancy to whoever's on
  the end of the phone then you need to sort out _that_ problem before worrying
  about the match between said person and your database.  Two separate issues.

> Once we cut off supporting THEIR customers, then their
> customers will see the value of coming to Digital for support.  
    
  Yeah.  Right.  That'll really show 'em how much we think of 'em.

> Pricing shouldn't be FAIR. It should be competitive and should be based
> on a)the sellers costs  b)the buyers needs  c)the quality of the product.

  You've got them in the wrong order : the seller's costs are the seller's
  problem and should not be used as justification for distorting the actual
  needs of the buyer.  The quality of the product currently has a lot of
  impact on the cost of support but precious little to do with the cost of
  support contracts.  The key is buyer's needs and competitive situation.
    
  Re .37

> I would guess (based on 10+ years of experience in phone support,)
> that over 95% of the calls we take are NOT for 'broken' things.

  If we're into guessing games then I would guess (albeit only based on 7+
  years of experience in phone support) that you are wrong, simply because
  you appear to be dismissing broken documentation, broken ordering systems,
  and broken user interfaces.  [ I realise that you probably don't consider
  broken promises as the responsibility of the company in any way ].

> MOST of our calls are configuration assistance, things that the
> customer has screwed up (all by themselves) and needs help getting out
> of, from customers who don't read the manuals (or didn't buy the manuals
> because they didn't want to spend the $$) or customers who have
> consulting type of questions (ie 'what's the best way to do xyz) or
> need someone to write code for them, or help them debug their code. 
    
  If the customer wants code to be written, charge them.
  If the customer wants help debugging their code, charge them.
  If the customer wants non-trivial advice in designing their application,
  charge them.  I have no problem with asking customers to pay for extras,
  that isn't the issue I'm concerned about.  What I _do_ object to is the
  double charge whereby customers are stung once by Digital's deficiency
  and a second time when Digital comes to undo the damage.

  If the customer wants help to undo the damage caused by someone selling
  an invalid configuration, charge the sales team - maybe that will bring
  home the importance of getting it right for the company rather than for
  the current quarter.

  If the customer wants help to make sense of the conflicting (or simply
  non-existent) documentation, "charge" the engineering team by logging the
  product deficiency - by removing usability road-blocks, you improve the
  chances of customers actually wanting the product. [ No rat-holes about
  the disconnect between customer desires and product management decisions
  though please ].

  If the customer wants help because the default setup is unusable in any
  practical [real-world] sense, an additional charge there should just about
  sink any chance of recovering the situation.  Still, at least they wouldn't
  call back on that product again ...

  Your gas analogy misses the mark somewhat : that would only apply if Digital
  was selling the electricity ["Was that 110 V filtered or raw ?"] not support
  for the product ["Of course, you can only buy the gold-plated disc pads from
  our dealers, but you'd better not go for any inferior brand !" ].

> Customers have choices. But calling for support that you are unwilling
> to pay for is NOT one of them 

  Can't you see that the most obvious choice that the customer has in this
  situation is to tell Digital precisely where to stick their over-priced
  support contract ?  How will this benefit anyone inside Digital ?

  If there was a way to guarantee that *only* the 'sharp-practice' customers
  were caught by any new measures then they _might_ be worth implementing.
  I can tell you know that there isn't - you'll end up winding up all of your
  big corporate-class customers, tieing down your call handlers & admin folks,
  increasing the heat on product specialists and pi$$ing off the very people
  you need to keep on YOUR side.  Not a good idea for any business in any
  environment but sheer suicide for one on a long, thin tight-rope like this
  company is having to walk - and especially so over there in lawyer-land ...

  Frank

re .41  Frank,
    
>>  You seem to be mixing consulting (optional services) with support (basic
>>  services).  If you're busy giving away blatant consultancy to whoever's on
>>  the end of the phone then you need to sort out _that_ problem before worrying
>>  about the match between said person and your database.  Two separate issues.

I am not mixing anything. The topic headed into the 'consulting' issue.
That was what I was talking about with the $200 an hour.
And, for what it's worth, we ARE working on the problem of giving away 
"blatant consultancy to whoevers on the end of the phone". I am also trying
to work on the problem of a "match between said person and your database".
They are two seperate issues. Two issues among many that are costing us 
millions of dollars a year. 

> Once we cut off supporting THEIR customers, then their
> customers will see the value of coming to Digital for support.  
    
>>  Yeah.  Right.  That'll really show 'em how much we think of 'em.

So, you think it's ok that R&D Systems buys ONE Digital support contract,
sells support to customers who might otherwise come to Digital for support,
and then call us to dial into THAT end customers system to fix the problem
because the R&D specialist has no expertise in that area?
Seems like a quick way to put ourselves out of business.
    
> Pricing shouldn't be FAIR. It should be competitive and should be based
> on a)the sellers costs  b)the buyers needs  c)the quality of the product.

>> You've got them in the wrong order : the seller's costs are the seller's
>> problem and should not be used as justification for distorting the actual
>> needs of the buyer.  The quality of the product currently has a lot of
>> impact on the cost of support but precious little to do with the cost of
>> support contracts.  The key is buyer's needs and competitive situation.

You are right. The sellers costs are the seller's problem. They are. And so 
Digital has stated that $200 and hour is the price they will charge. I don't
think that I've ever told a customer that we have to charge $200 and hour
becuase we are in financial trouble and need that $200 to get us over the hump.
The needs of the buyer simply dictate whether they want to pay $200 an hour.  
That is NOT Digitals concern, any more than the customer should care why we
charge $200 an hour. He does have a complaint if he feels that he was not 
provided the solution thatwas agreed to in the Revenue Opportunity Form he
signed prior to his $200 an hour clock starting, and the consulting begun.
The Chevy dealer won't charge me less to fix my Chevy just because I can't
afford to pay more.  They don't base their labour costs on my ability to pay.
No pay. No service.

  Re .37

> I would guess (based on 10+ years of experience in phone support,)
> that over 95% of the calls we take are NOT for 'broken' things.

>>  If we're into guessing games then I would guess (albeit only based on 7+
>>  years of experience in phone support) that you are wrong, simply because
>>  you appear to be dismissing broken documentation, broken ordering systems,
>>  and broken user interfaces.  [ I realise that you probably don't consider
>>  broken promises as the responsibility of the company in any way ].

Ok. So we'll agree that we are both basing that assumption on personal 
experience. 
I am NOT dismissing broken documentation or truly LOUSY products. Believe me,
that is another battle that I've been fighting for quite some time, expecially
in light of a particular product that we shipped that should never have left
the door...and is an inexcusable for software.  ALOT of what we do is BROKEN.
I am NOT PROUD of Digital or some of the things we do, and there have been times
(quite recently) when I deeply questioned our integrity.
But that doesn't excuse the fact that we have no responsibilty to provide
software support to people who do not want to pay for it. 
We owe our customers honesty, respect and to make sure that they get what they
pay for, which is a product that will do what we say it will.
We do not owe them anything more than that. It is a standard buyer/seller
relationship and it's no more than I expect when I am the buyer. 
But you're now talking about yet ANOTHER problem. Lack of quality control and
lack of integrity in those who choose to ship anyways.

> MOST of our calls are configuration assistance, things that the
> customer has screwed up (all by themselves) and needs help getting out
> of, from customers who don't read the manuals (or didn't buy the manuals
> because they didn't want to spend the $$) or customers who have
> consulting type of questions (ie 'what's the best way to do xyz) or
> need someone to write code for them, or help them debug their code. 
    
>>  If the customer wants code to be written, charge them.
>>  If the customer wants help debugging their code, charge them.
>>  If the customer wants non-trivial advice in designing their application,
>>  charge them.  I have no problem with asking customers to pay for extras,
>>  that isn't the issue I'm concerned about.  What I _do_ object to is the
>>  double charge whereby customers are stung once by Digital's deficiency
>>  and a second time when Digital comes to undo the damage.

I agree. Customers should not be charged for patches, when the patch is for
a product deficiency. Customers should not be charged for FIXES to 'broken'
things that are Digital's fault... 
 
>>  If the customer wants help to undo the damage caused by someone selling
>>  an invalid configuration, charge the sales team - maybe that will bring
>>  home the importance of getting it right for the company rather than for
>>  the current quarter.

Assuming of course that is was Digital who did the install in the first place.
Usually, they can get it done cheaper by some vendor, so they go that way (and
then of course call and scream at Digital when XYZ doesn't work, even though
it would work had it been configured correctly!)
  
>>  If the customer wants help to make sense of the conflicting (or simply
>>  non-existent) documentation, "charge" the engineering team by logging the
>>  product deficiency - by removing usability road-blocks, you improve the
>>  chances of customers actually wanting the product. [ No rat-holes about
>>  the disconnect between customer desires and product management decisions
>>  though please ].
 
You're right. We need to take a different look at how to write up documentation.
But we still can't make a customer BUY it or USE it once they did buy it.
  
>>  If the customer wants help because the default setup is unusable in any
>>  practical [real-world] sense, an additional charge there should just about
>>  sink any chance of recovering the situation.  Still, at least they wouldn't
>>  call back on that product again ...

That would be covered under warranty, wouldn't it? (I am not overly familiar 
with out warranty process, perhaps you can fill me in)

>>  Your gas analogy misses the mark somewhat : that would only apply if Digital
>>  was selling the electricity ["Was that 110 V filtered or raw ?"] not support
>>  for the product ["Of course, you can only buy the gold-plated disc pads from
>>  our dealers, but you'd better not go for any inferior brand !" ].

I disagree. You argument seems to be that we are overcharging for a product,
which would be support. I contend that the customer is not forced to pay the
Digital price (premium gas) but can chose to buy the product at Jiffy Stop.
When he makes that choice, he has to live with the results.

> Customers have choices. But calling for support that you are unwilling
> to pay for is NOT one of them 

>>  Can't you see that the most obvious choice that the customer has in this
>>  situation is to tell Digital precisely where to stick their over-priced
>>  support contract ?  How will this benefit anyone inside Digital ?

  Yes, customers have that option. It is amazing how many customers chose that
  option and and come back to us to clean up the mess. 
  It WILL benefit both us and our paying customers to have customers who refuse
  to pay, take their needs to another vendor, and good luck to them! We
  can dedicate our time and resources to those who have realized that we ARE
  worth the $$$.

>>  If there was a way to guarantee that *only* the 'sharp-practice' customers
>>  were caught by any new measures then they _might_ be worth implementing.
>>  I can tell you know that there isn't - you'll end up winding up all of your
>>  big corporate-class customers, tieing down your call handlers & admin folks,
>>  increasing the heat on product specialists and pi$$ing off the very people
>>  you need to keep on YOUR side.  Not a good idea for any business in any
>>  environment but sheer suicide for one on a long, thin tight-rope like this
>>  company is having to walk - and especially so over there in lawyer-land ...

So you advocate just providing support to anyone who can dial 1-800??? and
not worrying about the millions in revenue we're tossing?

  Re .42 (Cathy)

  To take your last point first :

> So you advocate just providing support to anyone who can dial 1-800??? and
> not worrying about the millions in revenue we're tossing?

  You know I don't advocate that.  What I worry about is the millions in
  revenue that we will deliberately turn off in the attempt to save maybe a
  thousand here and there.

> They are two seperate issues. Two issues among many that are costing us 
> millions of dollars a year. 

  OK, we're agreeing here.

> So, you think it's ok that R&D Systems buys ONE Digital support contract,
> sells support to customers who might otherwise come to Digital for support,
> and then call us to dial into THAT end customers system to fix the problem
> because the R&D specialist has no expertise in that area?

  This is a different situation than "not talking to someone who isn't on the
  list of contacts".  In the above scenario, the DECcie concerned can simply
  state that as there is no information on the target system, they cannot dial
  in as to do so would be compromising our integrity and potentially leaving
  the company open to litigation for hacking into a system which we KNEW was
  not on our contract database !  Just say "No" :-)

  We have to draw a line somewhere but, above all, it has to be *reasonable*.
  If you really wanted to, you could use the DPL argument to avoid having to
  talk to the end-user customer at all ("... but without any validation, how
  do I _know_ that this name isn't an alias for someone on the Denied Parties
  List ?").  Most (if not all) people can recognise the extreme cases where
  support should obviously be given in lieu or else withdrawn until a purchase
  order has been received.  What I am concerned about is how we treat the
  "grey area" cases : I'd much rather see people "Do the Right Thing" according
  to the circumstances than have any more blanket rulings whose inflexibility
  simply adds to the problem [& reduces Digital's user-friendliness even more].

> Digital has stated that $200 and hour is the price they will charge. 
> The needs of the buyer simply dictate whether they want to pay $200 an hour.  
> That is NOT Digitals concern, any more than the customer should care why ...

  Surely Digital should be concerned about whether or not we're going to get
  (& keep?) their business or are we still in the situation where we can say
  "Take it or leave it - we're big enough to do without you" ?

> We owe our customers honesty, respect and to make sure that they get what they
> pay for, which is a product that will do what we say it will.
> We do not owe them anything more than that. 

  This is true but before we start underlining the second sentence too heavily,
  we should make sure that we meet the requirements of the first one.

> But you're now talking about yet ANOTHER problem. Lack of quality control and
> lack of integrity in those who choose to ship anyways.

  Yep, sorry about that rathole ... I sometimes find it hard to make a clear
  distinction between Digital and Digital when I'm in the customer's shoes.
  Let it pass for now.

> I agree. Customers should not be charged for patches, when the patch is for
> a product deficiency. Customers should not be charged for FIXES to 'broken'
> things that are Digital's fault... 

  Wouldn't we have had to contact the end-user customer to establish that it
  *was* a Digital problem ?  Or would we have already told the customer where
  to go because his/her name wasn't on our little list ?  [ ie., not on the
  list until the issue gets blown out of all proportion, of course, and we
  start to see account teams & senior managers go into headless-chicken mode ].

> Assuming of course that is was Digital who did the install in the first place.
> Usually, they can get it done cheaper by some vendor, so they go that way ...
  
  Agreed - unfortunately not a rare situation.  Maybe we need to publicise the
  cases where we rescue the situation to offset the third party's publicity
  about our charges ?  [ ie., a little more aggression in the market ? ]

> We need to take a different look at how to write up documentation.
> But we still can't make a customer BUY it or USE it once they did buy it.

  Whilst there are exceptions to most situations, people will usually prefer
  to find an answer for themselves, especially if there is a risk that their
  problem is a "silly question" that might embarrass them for not working it
  out without a support call.  The more indirect assistance we give to the
  majority (by means of on-line help, documentation, whatever), the less time
  we waste and the more direct assistance we can give to those who _need_ it.
  (Let's face it, if we can guide the end-user to solutions for all the easy
  questions and also close down the blatant abuses of route-through calls,
  there will be no way that these intermediary companies *can* provide value).
  
> It is amazing how many customers chose that
> option and and come back to us to clean up the mess. 

  It does happen but - correct me if I'm wrong - the current trend is for the
  outgoing flow to be much higher than the returning flow.

  Frank

    
    Re: .38
    
     >   While I certainly agree that it should work, why should a
     >   customer expect that a highly-technical product would not
     >   require technical expertise to install and operate?

    Why?  Because that is what they want and if we don't provide it
    for them someone else will.  I've never seen a product that could
    not be made much simpler to install, use, etc. IF we wanted to
    make it that way.  Customers are demanding that we make them that
    way.  IF we really want to satisfy that demand we can do it.  It's
    simply a case of giving them what they want and not what WE think
    they should have.
    
    Steve
    

    Re .34
    
  >Glad that someone eventually got round to this point - shame it was followed
  >up by .32 (Jim M) :

    Why Frank, the truth hurts?
    
    
  >WHY SHOULD OUR CUSTOMER CARE ABOUT HOW INEFFICIENTLY WE RUN OUR BUSINESS ?
    
  >We are supposed to be providing a high quality support service on premium-
  >price products.  The fact that the products aren't premium-price quality
  >in the first place generates the customer calls and the initial level of
  >customer dissatisfaction.
    
    How we price our products and how we represent them durring sale is not
    the issue we are discussing, nor does it have any relevance.  I admit
    that it is a problem, but it needs to be fixed in marketing not in the
    support center.
    
    >                       Fine, that's why they buy the "insurance" of the
  >support contract (ie., because they know that the products are created by
  >humans and subject to the same degree of human error as any other field of
  >activity).
    
    Of Course.  
    
    >          To gouge more money from the customer because we (as a company)
  >are inefficient and to then "justify" it by whinging about the intrinsic
  >costs of doing work is simply pathetic.
    
    You obviously don't believe in FREE ENTERPRISE.  There is a need for a
    service, we provide the service (at a price).  If the customer thinks
    our price vs performance is too high, then theydon't purchase it from
    us.

>  As a customer, I buy a software support contract on DECthingy.  If DECthingy
>  has a bug in it, I want a fix (and a workaround in the meantime because this
>  is costing my company money).  I don't know and honestly don't care about
>  how much toilet paper may get consumed in the building while I'm waiting
>  for this business-critical bug to get fixed ... THAT IS A PROBLEM WITH YOUR
>  BUSINESS, NOT MINE !
    
    You're correct in that the customer doesn't care and shouldn't care
    what our overhead is...  I never tell the customer why we charge our
    rates.  Do you make it a habbit of justifying what Digital does?  I
    provide the fix they need, they pay my salary (plain and simple).  

    
>  It certainly *IS* a steal ... and most people have figured out just who's
>  doing the stealing ...
    
    I guess I'm not most people Frank.  It appears you think we are
    stealing from the customer for charging them for a service.  We charge
    what it costs to do business and a little for profit.  We charge what
    most contractors and private consultants charge.  It is a competitive
    rate and we provide GREAT SERVICE.  If the customer didn't think it was
    worth it they wouldn't call...

>> Oh, almost forgot.  We even page people all hours of the day for just about
>> anything.  Know what a callout is? 
>    
>  Yes.  It's an additional charge on the support contract with the same "bloat"
>  factor as for practically every other item this company sells.  Next ?
 
    No it isn't.  We use to pay our employee's $100 for any call they took. 
    We are doing it a little better now and charge straight time for Wage
    Class 4 and Time and a half for hourly.
     
    Jim Morton
    Colorado CSC
    Remote Support
    
    

  Re .45 (Jim)

> -< Do I detect an attitude? >-

  With the awareness of the outside world that you demonstrate elsewhere in
  your note I'd be surprised if you detected the ground under your feet.

> You obviously don't believe in FREE ENTERPRISE. 

  Unfortunately I do.  If I could depend on our customers being locked in to
  everything that Digital says & does then I'd not be in this discussion, it's
  the fact that they can (and do) choose more cost-efficient suppliers that is
  the risk here.  It is FREE ENTERPRISE [and this company's inability to cope
  with it] that has got us where we are now.  It is FREE ENTERPRISE that will
  provide the only chance of recovery.  The problem is that FREE ENTERPRISE
  means no more fat, no more "Digital knows best", no more "We're telling you
  [Mr.Customer] the way to behave" : it depends on our ability to listen,
  to adapt, to deliver and we - as a company - have a lot to learn about that.

> If the customer thinks our price vs performance is too high, then they
> don't purchase it from us.

  So true ...

> I never tell the customer why we charge our
> rates.  Do you make it a habit of justifying what Digital does?

  Only when faced with direct questions from customers, at which point I give
  the party line - good corporate citizen and all that.  I'm getting sick of
  having to defend the indefensible though, especially when it is touted with
  such enthusiasm inside the company and treated with such contempt in the
  real world.

> I provide the fix they need, they pay my salary (plain and simple).  

  Oh I do that too ... but I also listen to their other comments, I chat with
  the customers when on their site, I remember being a customer myself and
  realise what a difference from that time I'll see when I'm a customer again,
  I understand their pain, their frustration ... and I'm damn glad I haven't
  got any shares in this company when I read about some of the ideas for
  increasing revenue from the installed base.
    
>>  It certainly *IS* a steal ... and most people have figured out just who's
>>  doing the stealing ...
>    
>   I guess I'm not most people Frank.  It appears you think we are
>   stealing from the customer for charging them for a service.  

  Go back to the original point : I think we are stealing from the customer
  if we refuse to speak to a colleague of the "named contact" without charging
  a non-trivial fee [$200/hr * 2 hr minimum].  We've already hit the "blatant
  abuse of contract" case, the "chargeable add-on services" and other valid
  loopholes that _do_ need to be closed but there are a whole host of actions
  on OUR side of the balance that need to be addressed before taking the
  relatively easy option of "please send an additional $400 for the answer
  because your name isn't on our list".

> We charge what it costs to do business and a little for profit.  

  Nicely phrased : "what it costs to do business".  Takes care of the fact
  that it currently costs Digital several times more to do business than it
  should and that we don't give a monkey's about fixing this problem, simply
  passing the cost of our incompetence across to the customer.

>>> Oh, almost forgot.  We even page people all hours of the day for just about
>>> anything.  Know what a callout is? 
>>    
>> Yes.  It's an additional charge on the support contract with the same "bloat"
>> factor as for practically every other item this company sells.  Next ?
> 
>  No it isn't.  We use to pay our employee's $100 for any call they took. 
>  We are doing it a little better now and charge straight time for Wage
>  Class 4 and Time and a half for hourly.

  Yes it is, but maybe this is a geographical difference ?  (UK standard hours
  are 7-7 with an optional [charged] extension to 7-1 [or 24x7 or whatever]).
  Or maybe it's just another case of you providing an answer from the viewpoint
  of your paycheck rather than what the customer sees ?

  Frank

   A reference was made a few back to our prices being in line with our
   competition.  First:  Who is our competition?  Second: What do they
   offer?
   
   I don't know if Borland qualifies as a competitor, but (since no one
   else has posted any figures) I can answer the second question above.
   
   STANDARD ASSIST
   ===============
   
   Up and Running
   --------------
   
   Installation Hotline
   --------------------
   All registered users [you can register via phone] get 6AM to 5PM
   access to answer questions about installation and configuration.
   
   Price: Free
   
   
   Automated Support
   -----------------
   800-number automated support (voice) and not 800-numberOn-line
   support (modem) to get technical information, tips, answers to
   commonly asked questions, example files, etc.  24x7 access.
   
   Price: Free
   
   
   TechFax
   -------
   This automated service sends free technical information to your fax
   machine.   800-number.  24x7 access.  Over 1500 documents available.
   
   Price: Free
   
   
   Download BBS
   ------------
   Download most of the above.  Also has message capability.  Uses
   Wildcat BBS software. Not 800-number.  Available 24x7.
   
   On-line Support Forums
   ----------------------
   CompuServe, GEnie, and BIX blurb.
   
   
   
   ENHANCED ASSIST
   ===============
   
   Personal Assist
   ---------------
   Unlimited 800-number support for an individual user.  2 plans: 1) covers
   all Borland products, or 2) covers Borland languages.  Available 6AM
   to 5PM PT.
   
   Price: $129/product group.  Corporate and volume pricing available on
   application products.
   
   
   Expert Assist
   -------------
   For software experts requiring ongoing support.  Priority hotline
   service to senior support engineer.  Priced per single Borland
   applications. Unlimited 800-number.  One free issue of Borland
   KnowledgeBase CD.  Available 6AM to 5PM PT.
   
   Price: $249/single app.
   
   
   PREMIUM ASSIST
   ==============
   
   Help Desk Assist
   ----------------
   Bundle of services aimed at help desk people who support large
   numbers of internal users on all three Borland apps.  Unlimited calls
   from up to 4 contacts. 800-number.  Priority access to senior support
   person.  Free 1-year subscription to the Borland KnowledgeBase CD. 
   Access to a priority, 4-business-hour response on CompuServe forums. 
   Available 6AM to 5PM PT.
   
   Price: $5000/year for four contacts.  $500/year for each additional
   contact.
   
   
   Developer Assist
   ----------------
   Aimed at corporate and independent developers, consultants, etc. 
   Available on any single product or language.  800-number.  Priority
   access to senior person.  Free 1-year subscription to the CD.  4-hour
   response on CompuServe.  Covers assistance with user-created apps, DB
   design, coding and debugging issues.  Available 6AM to 5PM PT.
   
   Price: $2000/year for one contact.  $1500/year for each additional
   contact.
   
   
   OPTIONAL SUPPORT
   ================
   
   Borland KnowledgeBase CD
   ------------------------
   Published 4 times/year.  Info on Borland C++ (including bug list),
   Turbo Pascal, dBASE, Paradox, and Quattro Pro.
   
   Price: $149/each.  $249/year subscription.
   
   
   Advisor Line
   ------------
   Priority response service with a senior engineer.  Available 6AM to
   5PM PT.  800-number via credit card.  900-number via your phone bill. 
   Each app and language has its own 800-, 900-number.
   
   Price:  $2/minute, first minute free.
   
   
   
   All subscription services come with a 30-day money-back guarantee.

And without going into all the details: Microsoft's service (at least here
in France) is very similar. I use it very often. For my level of service,
(eg. simple how-to questions concerning Word, Excel, project etc.) the
service that is -->FREE<-- is good enough. 
The key message , and big difference with DEC, seems to be, that they 
differentiate between the large group of small users with simple questions 
(=FREE service), and the "professional" or large businesses that need 
quaranteed response times, hot-line support etc. etc. (which are not free).
Maybe we should make a similar split?
Maybe it costs them more to register all the contracts for these "small users"
than to send them a bill? 
Which brings me to a point that not has been mentioned in this string. There
have been some figures mentioned about nr of calls per day, potential revenu
loss etc. , but has anybody estimated what all this contract admin COSTS.
I have never made the addition . Over the past couple of years I have met
HUNDREDS of designers,analysts, developers, admin people, that are busy to
develop these systems, test them, populate them, maintain them, upgrade them
fieldtest them, interface them etc. etc. I wouldn't be surprised if this is
running in the hundreds of millions of dollars.... 

IMHO, you should only try to solve a problem, if you know what the benefits are,
what the costs are, and that it is clear that the benefits clearly are higher
than the costs.  

Well, just a thought

Timo
  

    re- .47, .48
    
    
    Very good notes.  I agree about admin costs being a lot and that we
    should adapt a similar method to what Borland is doing. (I believe if
    we did we would have a lot happier customers AND make money hand over
    fist!!)
    
    We (specifically the PDP11 support group in the Colorado CSC)
    championed the ROP (Revenue Opportunity Program).  This is what the CSC
    is currently being used for non-contract/above and beyond contract
    issues.
    
    Actually, we proposed something almost identical to what Borland is
    doing. We werew told "you can't do that".  The biggest reason why?
    
    BECAUSE WE ARE NOT A REVENUE GENERATING ORGANIZATION!!!!!!
    
    NO SH&T!!!!  That's what we were trying to say.  There is no reason
    that an organization that sells a service shouldn't get revenue for it!
    Somehow in Digital's infinite wisdom, this comes out of a different
    bucket!!
    
    Guess what, we are still not a revenue generating organization.  We had
    to send a check back to a customer!!! I won't hash over all of the
    STUPID things we went through in trying to get people to realize the
    lost revenue potential in the CSC's.  
    
    One last point, a LOT of people in the CSC's tried to fix the revenue
    issue (trying for a good solution for both the customer and Digital).
    We were told NO!!  Now we are trying to work within the current rules
    and enforce the current LEGAL contracts.  A lot of people say NO!!
    
    Now, I ask you, what's next. (Hint- all of the ideas up to now have
    been attempted up to a VP level!!)
    
    Steve Pitt